(Posted by Blair Lovern)

Reading all the big fat lazy newspapers the past few days, I'm noticing they are either pretty much just discovering SXSW (which started in 19 damn 86, fat lazy reporters, in case you need a refresher between your “Man, how about that Shiner beer!” sentences), or writing the most generic, idiotic crap. How anyone can still think newspapers are the saving grace of daily American knowledge, I have no clue.

Examples of “Golly-gee, look at all these bands” stories:

San Francisco Chronicle

The Washington Post uncovering some sort of film festival. (Anyone who uses “ultra-happening confabs” to describe anything should be forced to snack on day-old, fast food fish sandwiches and a 44-ounce cup of warm buttermilk for at least 30 consecutive days, and I wouldn't mind lobbying for 60.)

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Los Angeles Times (registration required).

Think it's just clueless outsiders? Try the Austin American-Statesman on for size (sigh, registration required.) Or this town's giant elephant yanking off the AP's roughage with its 120-year-old trunk.

The DMN's Over The Top blog (which should be called Over The Horizon for commenting about everything that happens in the world unless it's here) has actually been doing a good job. I would have liked to have seen more from Unfair Park, but I'm entertained by those folks no matter what they heave on the wall.

I dare anyone to say they'll have more photos of SXSW on their site than Kate Mackley, who will be posting them for us here. (Last year she snapped about 2,000.)

The SXSW site has conference video if you're into conference video. But it still isn't Information HQ. I've even bet let down by these guys the past few days. Frankly, you have to visit all over the Internet to get an idea about what's happening down there. (What else is new?) Although these folks have been prolific and the site is clutterless.

For something so big and so presumably important, the coverage by alleged American big shots has been lackluster.